Unmarried Partners / Families
 
Estimated Number of Printed Pages: 17
 
TOPICS COVERED: If the question is "Are you married?" that seems like a "Yes" or "No" question. This is the page about the people who answer, "No, but…." The unmarried, who are in long-term committed relationships. For some, it's as a permanent replacement for marriage. But there are also those who are using unmarried partnerships as a sort of "trial marriage." On the other hand, some experts argue having an unmarried relationships are a new part of the process of becoming an adult – and statistically, most Americans at least, still get married, eventually. So we were really torn where to put this information -- under Marriage (Part One or Two), Family Structure, or Becoming An Adult? Finally, we decided to include it as a subcategory of Love and Marriage, because that includes the different types of unmarried partnerships. But we're still thinking about all this, and suggest you do the same by reading this and also taking a look at our section on Becoming an Adult (especially the information on Delaying Marriage).
 
MEMOS ON RELATED INFORMATION: Marriage Part One (for Societal and Historical information), Marriage Part Two (for demographic information on marriage, including more information on probability of getting married), Households (for demographics on families and households), What Makes You a Grown-up? (for how marriage relates to the process of becoming an adult), Delaying Marriage (for information relating to timing of marriage), Single Parents, Adoption (for information about unmarried partners' ability to adopt), and Same-Sex Partners / Families. Also, for more information about having children while not married, check out our page on Birth Rate / Fertility / Family Size (for births to unmarried partners) and Single Parents.
 
Links to Sources for this material are available below. Please also see The Factbook Sources page for further information regarding Factbook sources and their availability.
 
 

PAGE INDEX:

 

TRANSITION OF UNMARRIED COHABITATION INTO MARRIAGE

UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PERCEPTIONS AND LEGAL STATUS

UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PREVALENCE

DEMOGRAPHICS OF U.S. UNMARRIED PARTNERS

UNMARRIED PARTNERS WITH CHILDREN

 
 
 
 

TRANSITION OF UNMARRIED COHABITATION INTO MARRIAGE

 
 
 
58 percent
In the U.S., if your daughter has been living with some guy for three years – and this is the first guy she’s lived with – the chance they’ll finally marry is 58 percent. 1.
 
 
 
48 percent
of cohabitations in the U.S. transition into marriage. 2.
 
 
 
39 percent –
the probability of that an American woman’s first premarital cohabitation will end within three years of cohabitation. The probability raises to 49 percent within 5 years of cohabitation. These probabilities include those cohabitations that resulted in marriage. 3.
 
 
 
Not surprisingly, American cohabitations last longer if the women:
have a higher educational background;
grew up in an intact two-parent family;
consider religion to play an important role in their lives;
have a high family income; and
live in a community with high median family income, low male unemployment, and low poverty. Those factors increase the longevity of a marriage as well. 4.

 
 
Twice as likely to break up as marriage
In the U.S., the likelihood that a first cohabitation will break up within five years is 49 percent – twice the rate that a first marriage will end in separation or divorce (20 percent). In 10 years, a cohabitation will have have broken up 62 percent of the time, while the probability of a marriage ending in separation or divorce is 33 percent. These cohabitations include those that have transitioned into marriage – which seems to indicate that marriages that follow cohabitation have a higher rate of dissolution. 5.
 
 
 
But that mean not mean living together is the reason for a greater risk of divorce –
Among Australians, while the divorce rate is higher for those who have lived together before marriage, it may not be that living together is the cause. Instead, the fact is that the population that is likely to live together is largely the same population that's more likely to divorce in any event – those who are less religious, lived in a broken home, etc. And those who are without those characteristics but live together are no more likely to divorce if they live together before marrying. So Australian research has determined that it isn't the living together that's the determinant of marriage success or failure.

A study of American women has somewhat similar findings: for example, women with weak religious backgrounds are both more likely to cohabit and divorce. So it may be the couple's background, generally, not the fact that they lived together, that increases the risk of dissolution. 6.
 
 
 
53 percent
The probability of a U.S. woman choosing to cohabit with a new partner, five years after the end of her first marriage. After 10 years, that rises to 70 percent. Black women are significantly less likely to cohabit after a broken marriage: the probability of postmarital cohabitation is 50 percent for Hispanic women, 58 percent for white women, but only 31 percent for black women. 7.
 
 
 
Black women are significantly less likely to cohabit after a broken marriage: the probability of postmarital cohabitation is 50 percent for Hispanic women, 58 percent for white women, but only 31 percent for black women. 8.
 
 
 
26 percent
of Jewish Israelis had lived with their spouse prior to marry them. Another 19 percent lived with someone else before their spouse, but hadn't ended up marrying them. 9.
 
 
 
Over 70 percent
of first-time marrieds Australians lived with their spouses before they got married. That's up from just 16 percent in the 1970s, and 43 percent in the 1980s. 10.
 
 
 
80 percent
of Czechs who live with someone plan to eventually marry that person. 11.
 
 
 
36.1 percent
of cohabitations in Canada transition into marriage. 12.
 
 
 
Three-fourths
of British first marriages begin as cohabitations. 13.
 
 
 
Three and four times more likely
British unmarried partners who are parents are three to four times more likely to separate than British parents who are married. 14.
 
 
 

TRANSITION OF UNMARRIED COHABITATION INTO MARRIAGE
UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PREVALENCE
DEMOGRAPHICS OF U.S. UNMARRIED PARTNERS
UNMARRIED PARTNERS WITH CHILDREN

 
 
 

UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PERCEPTIONS AND LEGAL STATUS

 
 
 
 
For many, if not most, couples who live together in the U.S., cohabitation represents a major step toward marriage; it isn't an end in itself. 15.
 
 
 
63 percent
of Jewish Israelis believe that a couple will benefit by living together prior to marriage. And 60 percent think it's all right to live together, even if the goal isn't marriage. 16.
 
 
 
"Well, it's okay for them, but I don't want to . . . "

Eight of 10 Czechs under the age of 30 think it's fine for a couple to live together without getting married.
 
But only one in 10 actually want to have that arrangement for themselves. 17.

 
 
When divorce wasn't allowed
In nations of South America that did not allow divorce, couples lived together and didn't get married, or, after a failed marriage, left their spouse and established a new, unmarried household with another partner. This was particularly the case in rural areas. But recently, cohabitation has been on the rise in urban sectors. 18.
 
 
 
Economics –
In South America, living together as unmarried couples was something just done by the poorer sectors of the community. However, the middle class has now begun to follow this pattern as well. 19.
 
 
 
2000
The year Belgian government determined that any two persons sharing a home – homosexual or heterosexual couples, siblings, two friends, etc. – can register to be legally be considered as ‘living together.” 20.
 
 
 
At least 55 percent
of Australia women age 18 to 34 believe that "it is good to have a trial marriage." 62 percent of men the same ages also agreed. 21.
 
 
 
‘Urfi marriage’
a form of informal marriage that is not legally registered, but has been on the rise in Arab nations, during this period. "This form of marriage occurred mainly either as a polygamous marriage, or among young people such as college students in which case both – the man and the woman – have not married before." 22.
 
 
 
“Two fake singles”
The term used in 1997 Belgium to describe couples who were living together but not getting married, acknowledging that there were tax advantages to remaining unmarried. The issue became a key issue in the 1999 elections, and subsequent tax reform was put into place such that it was neutral as to family form. 23.
 

 

TRANSITION OF UNMARRIED COHABITATION INTO MARRIAGE
UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PERCEPTIONS AND LEGAL STATUS
DEMOGRAPHICS OF U.S. UNMARRIED PARTNERS
UNMARRIED PARTNERS WITH CHILDREN

 
 
 

UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PREVALANCE

 
 
 
In North America and Western Europe, the prevalence of unmarried cohabitation is increasing– and not just prior to marriage, but also following separation, divorce or widowhood. "However, there is still a considerable between-country variation: in some of the Scandinavian countries, premarital cohabitation is a quite generalised form of behaviour; in countries such as France and the Netherlands, it is fast increasing; in some regions, such as Flanders, Scotland, and Wales, and in Southern European countries it is still a minority phenomenon." 24.
 
 
 
"In Greece and Portugal, cohabitation is low because marriage is high; whereas in Italy and Spain, cohabitation is low because there are fewer unions (the proportions of women marrying being similar to those observed in Central and Northern countries). In Italy and Spain, young people are not forming any unions at all, while this is the population group that enters into cohabitation in the rest of the EU." 25.
 
 
 
About 6.3 percent
of young couples in the European Union are cohabiting. 26.
 
 
 
Six to 92 percent –
the range in percentages of southern Europeans countries’ unmarried cohabiting young people the ages of 16 and 29. The lows are 6 percent (Italy) and 14 percent (Spain) "while Denmark, France and Holland stand out with rates of 72 percent, 46 percent and 54 percent, respectively." 27.
 
 
 
In the U.K., "by the mid 1990s there were just over one and a half million cohabiting couples in England and Wales, and that if trends continue numbers will almost double by 2012. . . ." 28.
 
 
 
19 percent
of all couples in the U.K. were cohabiting, unmarried couples in 1998. 29.
 
 
 
About 75 percent
of women in Finland are expected to have lived with someone by age 45. 30.
 
 
 
About 45 percent
of women in Canada are expected to have lived with someone by age 45. 31.
 
 
 
83.6 percent
of women in France are expected to have lived with someone by age 45. 32.
 
 
 
Less than 10 percent
of women in Italy are expected to have lived with someone by age 45. 33.
 
 
 
Less than five percent
of women in Poland are expected to have lived with someone by age 45. 34.
 
 
 
More Australians are single than before, but they aren't hanging out in the Outback all by themselves -
Instead, what is happening is that younger Australians form partnered relationships, but a lot of them don't last – so the end result is that more people are single at any given time. 35.
 
 
 
1.5 percent
of couples in Buenos Aires in 1960 were consensual (unmarried). 36.
 
 
 
13.6 percent
of couples in Buenos Aires in 1991 were consensual (unmarried). 37.
 
 
 
21 percent
of couples in Buenos Aires in 2001 were consensual (unmarried). 38.
 
 
 
Seven percent
National percentage of consensual (unmarried) couples in Argentina in 1960. 39.
 
 
 
18 percent
National percentage of consensual (unmarried) couples in Argentina in 1991. 40.
 
 
 
116,000
In 2003, the number of consensual (unmarried) couples in Argentina out of 548,000 total couples recorded. 41.
 
 
 
1.5 percent
National percentage of consensual (unmarried) couples in Brazil in 1960. 42.
 
 
 
21 percent
National percentage of consensual (unmarried) couples in Brazil in 2001. 43.
 
 
 

TRANSITION OF UNMARRIED COHABITATION INTO MARRIAGE
UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PERCEPTIONS AND LEGAL STATUS
UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PREVALENCE
UNMARRIED PARTNERS WITH CHILDREN

 
 
 

U.S. DEMOGRAPHICS OF UNMARRIED PARTNERS

 
 
 
“ . . . starting with people born about 1940, cohabitation began to increase among young adults regardless of their level of education. Among those born about 1950, who entered adulthood after 1970s, conventional wisdom was recent college graduates, rejecting the values of their parents, had started the trend. But . . . college graduates were not the trendsetters; at all times over the past several decades, persons with less education were more likely to cohabit. To be sure, there was a sharp rise in cohabitation among college graduates in the 1970s, so the claim that they were radically changing their behavior was correct. But so was everyone else.” 44.
 
 
 
5.5 million
U.S. couples (both and same sex) were living together as unmarried partners in 2000. That’s up from 3.2 million in 1990. Note, however, that the Census Bureau thinks that unmarried partners are likely to be underreported (e.g. a mother with kids living with her boyfriend, filing out the one form the house got, may have to, for a host of reasons, reply “single” instead of “unmarried partner.”). 45.
 
 
 
9.2 million
U.S. men and women live in 4.6 million unmarried-partner households. 46.
 
 
 
About 33 percent
of American young couples are cohabiting. 47.
 
 
 
Seven percent
of American women born in 1933-1942 lived with someone before getting married. 48.

 
 
Less than one percent
The percentage of cohabiting, unmarried couples in the U.S. in 1960. 49.
 
 
 
Seven percent
The percentage of cohabiting, unmarried couples in the U.S. in 1998. 50.
 
 
 
64 percent
of American women born in 1963-1974 lived with someone before getting married. Therefore, it is the norm for women born in this period. 51.
 
 
 
Over half
of U.S. women age 30 to 34 were currently living with someone, or had previously lived with someone prior to marriage, in 1995. 52.
 
 
 
So, not surprisingly, they're younger –
Partners in U.S. opposite-sex unmarried-partner households are an average of 12 years younger than partners in married-couple households. 53.
 
 
 
More dual-career households
In U.S. unmarried partner couples without children present, both of the couple work 61 percent of the time. That is 10 percent higher than married-couple households (at 51 percent). But among households with children, there are more dual-earner families among the married couples: 56 percent of unmarried couples with children are dual-earner families while 61 percent of married couples with children are dual-earners. 54.
 
 
 
The women are more educated
29 percent of U.S. women in U.S. unmarried-partner households are more educated than their partners – which is slightly higher than the rate in married couples (22 percent). 55.
 
 
 
And they probably make more, too –
U.S. women in unmarried-partner households are also more likely than married women to earn more than their partners. 23 percent of women in unmarried-partner households earn at least $5,000 more than their partners – compared with 17 percent of married women. 56.
 
 
 
Or, at least, it's closer to equal –
In 15 percent of U.S. unmarried partners, the men earned at least $30,000 more than their partners or wives. In married-couples, the proportion of men earning that substantially different an income was twice that (31 percent). 57.
 
 
 
California
the U.S. state with the most unmarried- partner households: 684,000, or 12 percent of the U.S.’s 5.5 million total. Of these, 591,000 were opposite-sex and 92,000 were same-sex couples, representing 12 percent and 16 percent, respectively, of these types of households in the nation. 58.
 
 
 
 

TRANSITION OF UNMARRIED COHABITATION INTO MARRIAGE
UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PERCEPTIONS AND LEGAL STATUS
UNMARRIED PARTNERS / PREVALENCE
DEMOGRAPHICS OF U.S. UNMARRIED PARTNERS

 
 
 

UNMARRIED PARTNERS WITH CHILDREN

 

(Note: For data relating to births to unmarried partners, see the Birth Rate Memo)

 
 
43 percent
of U.S. opposite-sex unmarried-partner households have at least one child under 18 present. (Child may be related or unrelated to householder, e.g. daughter of unmarried partner of householder.) 59.
 
 
 
Almost half
of U.S. out-of-wedlock births were to cohabiting mothers, according to results by the Fragile Families and Child Well-being survey. 60.
 
 
 
Six percent
of American children lived with unmarried parents in 2001. 61.
 
 
 
One third
of U.S. children will have their mother in a cohabiting relationship by the time the children are 16 years old. 62.
 
 
 
53.5 percent
of Swedish children will have their mother in a cohabiting relationship by the time the children are 16 years old. 63.
 
 
 
58 percent
of young women in Sweden were cohabiting at the birth of their first child. 64.
 
 
 
4.7 percent
of Polish children will have their mother in a cohabiting relationship by the time the children are 16 years old. 65.
 
 
 
12 percent
of Australian couples with children aged 0-17, in 2003, who were unmarried. 66.
 
 
 
1999
The year Portugal gave cohabiting couples the legal "right to adoption, entitled them to be taxed jointly and gave the surviving partner more rights to the joint home in the event of death (usufruct rights, for a period of five years, to the home owned by the deceased partner)." 67.
 
 
 
2001
The year the U.K. Parliament granted unmarried couples the right to joint adoption of a child. 68.
 
 
 
____________________________________________________
 
 
1. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002) p. 12. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf; Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 1996, Current Population Reports, P70-97. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2002)), pp. 15-17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p70-80.pdf; and Rose M. Kreider, Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2001, Current Population Reports, P70-97, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (2005). Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
2. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1223.
3. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002) pp. 12-13. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
4. MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002) pp. 12-13. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
5. Sandra S. Smith, "NCHS Dataline," Public Health Reports (March 1, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:94042640 and MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002) pp. 12-13. Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
6. David De Vaus, "Australian Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 67-98 (2005), p. 89. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 See also MD Bramlett and WD Mosher, Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States, National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002). Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf;
7. MD Bramlett and Mosher WD. Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 20 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
8. MD Bramlett and Mosher WD. Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 23(22) (2002), p. 20 (citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
9. Ruth Katz and Yoav Lavee, "Families in Israel," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 486-506 (2005), p. 488 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
10. David De Vaus, "Australian Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 67-98 (2005), p. 67. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 and ________, "3310.0 Marriages and Divorces, Australia," Australian Bureau of Statistics (November 26, 2003). Accessed at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/893c1288678fd232ca2568a90013939c! OpenDocument on August 13, 2005.
11. Ivo Mozny and Tomas Katrnak, "The Czech Family," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 235-261 (2005), pp. 240. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
12. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1223.
13. Judith A. Seltzer, "Cohabitation in the United States and Britain: Demography, kinship, and the Future," Journal of Marriage and Family, Volume 66, No. 4 pp. 921-928 (November 2004), p. 922 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://ejournals.ebsco.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/direct.asp?ArticleID=4A0387BF0447AD54BB0D
14. Ceridwen Roberts, The Situation of Families in the UK, 1997-2002, European Observatory on Family Matters (2002), p. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_02_uk_roberts_en.pdf
15. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
16. Ruth Katz and Yoav Lavee, "Families in Israel," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 486-506 (2005), p. 488 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
17. Ivo Mozny and Tomas Katrnak, "The Czech Family," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 235-261 (2005), p. 240. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
18. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 6. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
19. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 6. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
20. Wilfried Dumon, The Situation of Families in Belgium, 1996-2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 6. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_belgium_dumon.pdf
21. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002)(citations omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
22. Nazek Nosseir, "Family in the New Millennium: Major Trends Affecting Families in North Africa," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), p. 10. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtnosseir.pdf and Hoda Badran, "Major Trends Affecting Families El Mashrek El Araby," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), p. 8. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtbadran.pdf
23. Wilfried Dumon, The Situation of Families in Belgium, 1996-2001, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 2. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_belgium_dumon.pdf
24. Robert Cliquet, "Major Trends Affecting Families In the New Millennium – Western Europe and North America," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003), p. 2. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtcliquet.pdf
25. Christos Bagavos and Claude Martin, Low Fertility, Families, and Public Policies, Synthesis Report of Annual Seminar. Austrian Institute for Family Studies, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), p. 9. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/sevilla_2000_english_en.pdf
26. ________, "Fewer Marriages, More Divorces," The Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth, and Family Policies at Columbia University, New York, NY (January 2004). Archived at: http://www.childpolicyintl.org/contexttabledemography/table216.pdf
27. Lynne Chisholm, Antonio de Lillo, Carmen Leccardi and Rudolf Richter (eds), Family Forms and the Young Generation in Europe, Report on the Annual Seminar 2001, Milan, Italy, 20–22 September 2001, Austrian Institute for Family Studies, European Observatory on the Social Situation, Demography and Family (2001), p. 63. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/milan_report_2001_en.pdf
28. Ceridwen Roberts, The Situation of Families in the UK, 1997-2002, European Observatory on Family Matters (2002), p. 2 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_02_uk_roberts_en.pdf
29. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
30. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222.
31. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222.
32. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222, 1225.
33. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222.
34. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1222.
35. David De Vaus, "Australian Families," Handbook of World Families, Bert N. Adams and Jan Trost (eds). Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 67-98 (2005), p. 71 (citation omitted). Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0761927638/qid=1123855404/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0887680-4192712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
36. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
37. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
38. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
39. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
40. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
41. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
42. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
43. Elizabeth Jelin and Ana Rita Díaz-Muñoz, "Major Trends Affecting Families: South America in Perspective," Major Trends Affecting Families: A Background Document, Report for United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Program on the Family (2003) p. 7. Archived at: http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/family/Publications/mtjelin.pdf
44. Andrew J. Cherlin, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Revised and Enlarged Ed., Harvard University Press, USA (1992), p. 11. Available through: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067455082X/ref=sib_rdr_dp/104-0887680-4192712?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books
45. Tavia Simmons and Martin O’Connell, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-5 U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
46. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
47. As of 2002. Sandra S. Smith, "NCHS Dataline," Public Health Reports (March 1, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?docid=1G1:94042640
48. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
49. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
50. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002)(citation omitted). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
51. Tom W. Smith, "The Emerging 21st Century American Family," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago (October 2001). A 1999 edition of the report is archived at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/online/emerge.pdf
52. According to a survey. William M. Pinsof, "The Death of 'Til Death Us Do Part,': The Transformation of Pair-Bonding in the 20th Century," Family Process (June 22, 2002). Archived at: http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc3.asp?DOCID=1G1:90301620
53. Tavia Simmons and Martin O’Connell, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-5 U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
54. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
55. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 17. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
56. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 17-18. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
57. Jason Fields, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-553. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), pp. 17-18. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf
58. Tavia Simmons and Martin O’Connell, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-5 U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
59. Tavia Simmons and Martin O’Connell, Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000, Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-5 U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. (February 2003), p. 1. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-5.pdf
60. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1215.
61. Terry Lugaila and Julia Overturf, Children and the Households They Live In: 2000, U.S. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-14. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2004), p. 9. Archived at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-14.pdf
62. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1225-1226.
63. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1223.
64. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1223.
65. Patrick Heuveline and Jeffrey M. Timberlake, "The Role of Cohabitation in Family Formation: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Journal of Marriage and Family, vol. 66, pp. 1214-1230 (December 2004), p. 1223.
66. ________, "4442.0 Family Characteristics, Australia," Australian Bureau of Statistics (updated March 15, 2005). Accessed at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/5087e58f30c6bb25ca2568b60010b303/e6a9286119fa0a85ca25699000255c89!OpenDocument on August 28, 2005.
67. Karin Wall, The Situation of Families in Portugal in the Late 1990s, European Observatory on Family Matters (2001), pp. 10-11. Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_01_portugal_wall_en.pdf
68. Ceridwen Roberts, The Situation of Families in the UK, 1997-2002, European Observatory on Family Matters (2002), p. 12 (citation omitted). Archived at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/eoss/downloads/gm_02_uk_roberts_en.pdf